Re: [dmarc-ietf] dmarc - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 110

ote: >> >> >> A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Alexey Melnikov, a >> Chair of the dmarc working group. >> >> >> - >> Working Group Name: Domain-based Message Authent

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Announcing DMARCbis Editors

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, at 11:44 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Thu 05/Nov/2020 18:45:25 +0100 Seth Blank wrote: [snip] > > If someone believes policy can be spun out into a separate draft, please > > upload your suggestion as an I-D and we will discuss it. > > > An I-D?! What kind of I-D? C

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Subject: Call for Adoption: DMARC-bis

Hi Alessandro, On Tue, Oct 27, 2020, at 8:17 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Mon 26/Oct/2020 22:58:50 +0100 Tim Wicinski wrote: > > Please review this draft, and we are looking for *objections to adoption*, > > and > > send comments to the list stating your objections.  The working group can

[dmarc-ietf] Ticket #7: ABNF for dmarc-record is slightly wrong

Dear DMARC WG participants, I would like your feedback on resolving the following ABNF issue: In Section 6.4 "dmarc-record" is defined as: dmarc-record= dmarc-version dmarc-sep [dmarc-request] [dmarc-sep dmarc-srequest]

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Seeking volunteers to edit DMARCbis

Hi Alessandro, On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, at 5:51 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri 12/Jun/2020 18:09:41 +0200 Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > > > On behalf of DMARC chairs I would like to ask for volunteers to edit future > > revisions of draft-kucherawy-dmarc

[dmarc-ietf] Seeking volunteers to edit DMARCbis

Hi all, On behalf of DMARC chairs I would like to ask for volunteers to edit future revisions of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-dmarcbis. We are likely to split up the current document into multiple drafts that can be progressed in parallel, so we are seeking multiple editors to help with this. If you

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Kicking off DMARCbis -- tracker and process updates

Hi all, This is the followup email that Seth was talking about in the message below. Here is the process that chairs will use for managing tickets in trac (and just to clarify, when Seth wrote "datatracker" he really meant "trac" on tools.ietf.org) 1) Opening tickets: anyone can open a new ti

[dmarc-ietf] Fwd: Fwd: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings

Forwarded Message Subject: Fwd: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online IETF meetings Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 07:48:03 -0400 From: Alissa Cooper To: IETF WG Chairs Please circulate this to your working group lists. The survey data will be very important as

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Possible draft-ietf-dmarc-psd revision

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020, at 3:37 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > As we're in AD Review now, I'll let Alexey decide. Please do a new revision. I will be able to cope. > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:05 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: >> If the chairs are up for it, I'd like to publish a revision to the dra

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Upcoming personnel changes

participate here. For the > > next couple of months, I will be going it alone. > > > > Second, I have been appointed by the NomCom to a two year term as ART > > Area Director. Alexey Melnikov and Adam Roach are finishing their > > terms in March at the Vancouver meeting, an

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Endless Email Loops with Aggregate Reports

Hi Dave, > On 1 Jun 2019, at 09:18, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> On 6/1/2019 10:13 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:55 AM Dilyan Palauzov > > wrote: >>Shall I submit an erratum to RFC7489? >> I would, yes. And this should certainly b

[dmarc-ietf] Seth Blank as the new DMARC WG secretary

Hi all, I am pleased to announce that Seth Blank agreed to become the DMARC WG secretary to help Murray and Tim with organizing work and helping to get it done. Best Regards, Alexey, as AD ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mai

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-04: (with COMMENT)

Hi Eric, > On 4 Apr 2019, at 15:05, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote: > > Does -04 fix all issues / comments from the Internationalization directorate > (which was about -03) ? I believe so. Best Regards, Alexey ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.o

[dmarc-ietf] AD review draft-ietf-dmarc-eaiauth-02

Hi all, This document is in a good shape, but I have a couple of minor things that I would like to see fixed before initiating IETF LC: 4.  SPF and internationalized mail    SPF macros %s and %l expand the local-part of the sender's mailbox.    If the local-part contains non-ASCII characters,

[dmarc-ietf] New chairs for DMARC

Dear WG participants, After talking to various candidates and discussing them with my ART co-ADs, I am pleased to announce that Murray Kucherawy and Tim Wicinski agreed to co-chair the DMARC going forward. I would like to thank Tim Draegen, Ned Freed and Barry Leiba for helping the WG to complet

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

>> DISCUSSes and most of the COMMENTs from IESG review. Please let me >> know if I've missed anything. I'll post it at the end of the coming >> week if there are no issues raised.>> >> http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rfc7601bis-from-rfc760

Re: [dmarc-ietf] New diff rfc7601 vs rfc7601bis, was Ben Campbell's Discuss...

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Monday, January 14, 2019 10:06:02 AM Kurt Andersen wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 9:39 AM Scott Kitterman > > > > wrote: > > > On January 14, 2019 3:02:01 PM UTC, "Kurt Andersen (b)" > > > > > > wrote: > > > >On Mon, Jan 14, 2019

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

ld = "Authentication-Results:" authres-payload > >authres-payload = "Authentication-Results:" [CFWS] authserv-id You have "Authentication-Results:" twice now. I think you want to delete it from authres-payload. > > -MSK > > On Fri, Nov 30, 201

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"obsoletes" rather than "updates".) > > As it's editorial, I'm sure we don't need to go back through any > approval process, and we can get the DISCUSS cleared and move forward. I agree. I think this is purely editorial, albeit an important issue for the f

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi all, On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, at 9:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > I actually agree with this: I think the better answer is to go back to > "obsoletes" and to have this document include the details of what was > put in the registries before. But the working group decided to do it > the other way, and

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)

Hi Kurt, On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, at 1:31 PM, Kurt Andersen wrote: > No objections to making the changes suggested by Adam. Will update > pending AD direction.Please apply these changes to your copy, but wait before > posting a new version. Best Regards, Alexey > > --Kurt > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-dmarc-01-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

Hi Alissa, On Tue, Nov 20, 2018, at 9:03 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-dmarc-01-00: Block > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dmarc-01-00: (with COMMENT)

I applied these changes. Thank you, Barry! On Tue, Nov 20, 2018, at 8:44 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > > The Phase I description is still included: "Draft description of > > interoperability issues for indirect mail..." Isn't that rfc7960? > > Yeh, we did this too quickly, I'm afraid. We should mak

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18

On 5 Nov 2018, at 13:46, Barry Leiba wrote: Both of these are indeed normative in usage, but I was under the impression that one could not refer to I-Ds as normative. >>> >>> One can't, so that means that this document will be held by the RFC >>> Editor in a "MISSREF" (missing re

Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18

On 5 Nov 2018, at 11:38, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Both of these are indeed normative in usage, but I was under the impression >> that one could not >> refer to I-Ds as normative. > > One can't, so that means that this document will be held by the RFC > Editor in a "MISSREF" (missing reference) sta

[dmarc-ietf] Looking for new chairs for DMARC

Dear DMARC WG participants, As we reached a major milestone of completing ARC, I am now looking for volunteers to be DMARC WG co-chairs going forward. If you would like to co-chair DMARC WG or can think of another person who you think should, please send me a direct reply. Thank you, Alexey, as

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG

Hi Scott, On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, at 6:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Is this milestone really done? The protocol document references draft- > ietf-dmarc-arc-multi, which isn't done yet. Doesn't it need to be done > too before this gets checked off (there is no separate milestone for > multi).

[dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18

I've reviewed recent changes and they look like an improvement over earlier versions. I have a few minor comments: 1) I think several references need to be reclassified as Normative:    [I-D-7601bis]   Kucherawy, M., "Message Header Field for Indicating   Message Authent

[dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-03.txt

Hi, I've started IETF LC on the document, as my comments are really minor: 1) I am not sure that deleted IANA registry descriptions (when compared to RFC 7601) is the best way, considering that this document obsoletes RFC 7601. I think it would be better to just keep the text and add a senten

[dmarc-ietf] Testing DMARC workaround code

Hi, My appologies for spamming everybody, but considering that this is a mailing list that works on DMARC, testing DMARC related issues seems appropriate. I am sending this email from a domain that advertises p=reject DMARC policy. My From address should be rewritten to be a @dmarc.ietf.org

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [ietf-smtp] Moving RFC4406 to historic?

On 23 Mar 2018, at 12:27, John R. Levine wrote: >> I have now posted >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-andersen-historic-4406-etal-00 for this >> task. >> >> Please let me know if that fits the bill. > > Looks good to me. I hope Dave remembers what the process is for a document > like this

[dmarc-ietf] Review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-07

I've noticed that you've posted draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-08, so some of the issues identified below might no longer be relevant: 1) The new abstract doesn't even use the word "email". This needs to be fixed, because otherwise it is not possible to determine that this is related to email or DK

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Another question for the group: A-R --> AAR, should we convert the authserv-id into a tag-spec?

> On 20 Jul 2017, at 07:17, Brandon Long wrote: > > That would also raise the question of where the semicolon would be. > > Arc-Authentication-Result: i=1 authserv-id=mx.google.com; > > Or > > Arc-Authentication-Result: i=1; authserv-id=mx.google.com; I think the idea was to use the latte

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comments on ARC specification

> On 18 Jul 2017, at 09:59, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > >> Examples need updating. > > Thanks - I'm sure that there's a lot more problems in the examples than just > the ones you listed :-/ I suspect that we should just entirely remove the > examples right now. I think I like to see examples

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comments on ARC specification

Hi Kurt, > On 18 Jul 2017, at 09:59, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Alexey Melnikov >> wrote: >> I've started implementing ARC and have a few minor comments on the draft: >> >> 5.1.2.2. Computing the 'b' Ta

[dmarc-ietf] Comments on ARC specification

I've started implementing ARC and have a few minor comments on the draft: 5.1.2.2. Computing the 'b' Tag Value for ARC-Message-Signature As with ARC-Seal and DKIM-Signature header fields, the order of header fields signed MUST be done in bottom-up order. Upon rereading this I am not sure

Re: [dmarc-ietf] ARC RFC status to target

> On 7 Jul 2017, at 20:50, Steven M Jones wrote: > > Perhaps the criteria would be included in the RFC, and the review would > be added to the WG's work items? I'm not sure how it's usually done... > Do Experimental RFCs ever get expiration dates as a forcing function, > the way Internet Drafts

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal: Writing a DMARC usage guide is not a good task for this WG

> On 1 Jun 2017, at 05:23, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> I agree with this. If there's stable documentation on DMARC usage >> that we can cite, there's little value in adding our own, which is >> likely to end up diverging from the other

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Meeting in Prague (IETF 99)

Hi Kurt, On 31 May 2017, at 06:49, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: >> even if we need to discuss the next steps, we haven't done that on the list >> yet, so we >> don't know that we need face time for it. > > Most of the effort has been focused on getting ARC deployed in to production > so there has

[dmarc-ietf] Fwd: WG Action: Formed DKIM Crypto Update (dcrup)

> Current status: Proposed WG > > Chairs: > Rich Salz > Murray Kucherawy > > Assigned Area Director: > Alexey Melnikov > > Applications and Real-Time Area Directors: > Adam Roach > Ben Campbell > Alexey Melnikov > > Technica

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Prodding for reviews... and planning NOT to have a meeting in Chicago

Is it worth having a Hackaton ARC interop testing in Chicago? > On 2 Jan 2017, at 20:04, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Kurt Andersen wrote: >> 1) Murray had promised some ideas for restructuring the draft to make it >> more understandable, but I haven't recei

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Last Call: (Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect Email Flows) to Informational RFC

On 22 May 2016, at 00:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> o Configuring the MLM to "wrap" the message in a MIME message/rfc822 >> part and to send as the Mailing List email address. Many email >> clients (as of the publication of this document), especially >> mobile clients, have di

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Moving on to our next phase?

Hi Kurt, > On 1 Apr 2016, at 19:13, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > Since we've completed the task of identifying the interoperability problems > with some mitigations (phase I), is it time for us to move on to our next > activity phase? > > Also, is there some admin-magic that has to happen to